media_and_culturefandomcom-20200213-history
Perzanowski and Schultz
Framework What are the four documented benefits of the first sale doctrine? Describe each. The four documented benefits of the first sale doctrine are as follows: access, preservation, privacy, and transactional clarity. 1) Access The first sale doctrine idea is to improve availability and affordability through secondary markets that distribute or sell items that are outside the copyrights control. This allows for good to be able to reach different markets by reducing the prices and looking at different demographics 2) Preservation "First sale" allows the public to continue to have access to works and texts that the copy right owner is no longer distributing (like texts no longer available or texts that have been "orphaned" by copyright owners who individuals cannot get a hold of, or who no longer exist). These works are still a reflection of our society, and cultures reap benefits from their continued existance. Through "secondary markets," these works continue to be circulated and help to prevent their permenant demise through the distribution of many copies and vast geographic distributions. 3) Privacy First sale doctrine aids in protecting the privacy of the consumers so that consumers may transfer works anonymously without the permission of the copyright owner. The guarantee of privacy is important especially concerning controversial material—if it was necessary for the copyright holder to give consent, controversial material would likely be more avoided due to the fact that’s monitered. 4) Transactional Clarity The first sale doctrine advocates transactinal clarity by keeping customers and consumers safe from high costs for transaction on the costs for copy-righted items that are of low-cost. Consumers are given a "reliable baseline" of rules and restrictions to follow in terms of copyright and the usability of their purchases. If this was not the case, and each good had its own rules and restrictions, consumers would stop buying goods or regularly ignoring the laws and rules associated with them (for each of their goods would have a different set of restrictions to follow). The authors also contend there are two undocuented benefits of the first sale doctrine. What are they and describe each. 1) Innovation Innovation came come through copyright owners to compete with secondary markets, the innovation of users, and innovation by secondary market providers Perzanowski and Schultz, UCLA Law Review (897). First sale supports innovation through allowing for experimentation and allowing innovators to get works at lower costs. Creating innovations would be difficult and expensive without the first sale doctrine. First sale also allows copy owners to “distribute their innovations without requiring retroactive permission from rights holders.” Perzanowski and Schultz, UCLA Law Review (900) 2) Platform Competition Platform competition is when the vendor makes it hard for the seller to switch to a new company. They discourage it by showing the cost difference for switching from their company to another; this is known as a “Lock-in”. They do this by not allowing the costumer to recover from previous purchases, so if they change they will end up losing that money. However the first sale doctrine allows for customers to switch companies and purchase different products through secondary markets. Analysis Analyze your use of copyrighted works. What will change about your media use without the first sale doctrine? Lauren Olson Analysis Description: I really enjoy watching movies. Though I don't follow any shows on TV, I watch movies regularly. When there's a movie trailer that I see for a show that I am dying to see, I know that I'll either have to find a friend or group of friends to see it with in the theater (which to me, personally, is a pain--it's expensive, the food is costly, the seats are uncomfortable, it's usually dirty, and you can only see the movie you desire to watch at certain times), or have to wait until the movie comes out on DVD or OnDemand. My family doesn't pay for Netflix or Hulu, but we use Comcast OnDemand to purchase movies every once in a while; we also use RedBox regularly. Unless I love a movie, I usually won't fork over the $20 dollars to purchase it in the store when it comes out on DVD. I usually patiently wait for a few weeks for the movie's debut on Comcast or in the Redbox machine. Without copyright rules and restictions, I would simply download the movies offline from people who uploaded them the day they debuted, or I'd have a friend burn me a copy of the movie. Analysis: If works were no longer copyrighted, I doubt I would ever see a movie in the theater again. For the reasons listed above, I don't find the movie theater to be a very appealing place to go--I definitely prefer my own couch, with my blankets, my pajamas, my own food, the ability to pause and rewind the show if I need to, the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I please, and the much cheaper (or free!) price of watching a movie at home. When a movie came out, I would simply download it from someone who uploaded it to the internet after the premire, or I would have a friend burn me a DVD copy of their own copy of the movie. I wouldn't even have to run to RedBox anymore, and I would definitely watch all movies from homes of friends' houses. I would also never be waiting around for a movie to come out on DVD/Redbox/OnDemand, because the movies would be available instantaneously online. The "waiting period" between the movie theaters and DVDs would be over. Interpretation: The "so what" of the removal of copyrights from movies would be that movie theaters would probably become obsolete. For the reasons I listed above, movie-goers would probably no longer go to movie theaters--shows would probably be available online within 24 hours of their release. Americans today orient their lives around convience and accessibility, especially in terms of technology, and I feel that the removal of copyright from movies would wipe out movie theaters all together. Movie renting companies would probably soon be swept out too, because people would be able to so easily burn copies of movies, and share them with one another. If movies were no longer copyrighted, I know I personally would never step foot in a movie theater again, and would probably rarely pay for a movie again, because I would simply download the movies offline, or have friends make me a copy (or share their copies with me!) All of the money I fork into movie rents and showings monthly would begin going towards something else; in fact, my "movie money" could probably be removed from my budget all together. Evaulation: So is this a good thing, or a bad thing? To me personally, it would be a great thing. As I just mentioned, I would probably never have to drop another dime on a movie, and would have access to all of the movies I wanted. I would never have to go to the theater again, wait for a movie to be release on DVD or OnDemand, and would probably own personally burned copies of all of the movies I could ever imagine. To me, removal of copyright from movies would be great--especially because I'm someone who watches (and unfortunately, pays for) movies very regularly. But for the movie industry, this would be a horrible thing. Without a doubt, movie theater usage, DVD rentals, and DVD sales would plummet--and these are obviously large sources of revenue to the movie industry. Copyright must be instilled on movies to keep the movie instrusty alive, healthy, and most importantly--making money! And, all in all, to me as a movie-watching regular, the money I give up on a monthly basis is certainly worth the continued production of new movies in the industry. Engage: As I just stated, I'll continue to give up my monthly "movie money" towards watching these movies. Though the removal of copyright from movies altogether would be awesome--and would certainly increase the amount of movies I watch, the time I watch them, and the conviencne I watch them with--it would by no means be worth the demise of the movie industry (from lack of income from consumers). As an avid movie watcher, I must continue to be an advocate of copyright on movies, to keep one of my favorite industries alive. In addition, I will keep paying to see movies on the theater, and occasionally buying them on DVD, to support one of my main sources of entertainment and happiness. Courtenay Dibble Analysis Description: My use of media will not really change without the copyright, especially for downloading music, movies, and TV shows. All of these three things I do illegally. So in that sense it will not really affect me. I do realize that this hurts the entertainment industry but I think some things or overpriced and I will not pay for that. For example I like watching Game of Thrones but I have to pay extra to get the HBO channel or watch it on their website. Instead of spending money on the entire channel for one show I will stream it or download it illegally. Analysis: I don’t really go to the movie theaters, except if I go with a group of friends for a premier or a well criticized movie. Besides that I am not willing to spend money on a movie that I know is going to be decent but not worth the money. Over all if copyrights are taken way it will not affect me at all or the way I treat media. However it will incite me to go by an album, the last time I bought a music album was when ACDC released Black Ice that was 4 or 5 years ago. I tend to download music off the internet. Interpretation: I think that if copyrights were taken away it will really affect theaters, Movie stores, stores that sell movies. Without copyrights people will be more reluctant to leave their homes to go buy or rent movies if they can get them off line. Personally I will still go to the theaters if the movie is something big, or the critics have talked wonders of it. Evaluation: For me personally it will not affect me at all as stated before, I already do it use media without copyright. However I will still spend money at theaters if the movie is worth it as mentioned before. The good thing about this is that I never leave the comfort of my apt. I can watch a movie while cooking, in my bed, the living room. That is the good thing about watching through non copyright channels I do not have to worry about spending money and can do ti from anyplace at home at my comfort. Engage: As I have stated before it will not change I thing for me. I already use channels that are non-copy right. I will continue to do it because it’s convenient. But I will spend money at the theaters if the movie is worth watching in the big screens Eli Rhée Analysis Description: My current media consumption habits include watching television shows and listening to music. I don’t watch a lot of movies because I don’t have the money to go to the theater, though I will rent it or get a movie from RedBox after it comes out on DVD. With television shows, I don’t have cable, so that leaves me few options. If I am trying to catch up on a show, I will see if it is on Netflix or at the library. However, sometimes this doesn’t cover all the bases, I will stream it online, but never download it. For music, I use Spotify most of the time, and if I really love a song, I will buy it. I rarely illegally download music. If copyright laws weren’t in place, I would constantly be downloading music and shows and I wouldn’t feel any guilt over it. Analysis: If the copyright laws were no longer in place, it’s pretty clear that most people wouldn’t spend the $10-15 to see a movie in the theaters, or to even pay for cable television. Why do this when you could download content for free? Most people would rather benefit from this, unless they really wanted to support a particular artist. Interpretation: Even though I personally feel as though I would want this, if copyright laws weren’t in place, there would be negative consequences for nearly everyone involved. Even though many consumers are benefitting for something that they haven’t paid for, places like movie theaters, film companies, record companies, and even companies like Apple with iTunes would feel the negative effects of this. Artists would be less motivated to create content since they would not be getting paid much for it. Evaluation: Even though I personally benefit from copyright laws not being in place, the reality is that the effects would in fact be detrimental. The consumers would be receiving a service that they did not pay for, theaters would quickly go out of business, and the film and music industry, a huge part of our economy, would plummet. Artists would feel little motivation to make new and more creative content, and so the quality of the media would likely fall as well. Engagement: I probably won’t change very many of my media consumption habits, but I am reminded why copyright laws are beneficial to everyone involved. I will continue to buy the music of artists that I really enjoy, and maybe once I live off campus I will buy cable channels so that I can watch content legally and supporting the industry instead of streaming it . Edward Hill's analysis Description- I love to download music when i have the time but some of my favorite songs i can't download because their coprighted. Mostly the mainstream music i hear on the radio i can't download because the music is on the artist CD and not a mixtape. Mixtapes are easy to get and download for free but getting albums is another story, well atleast for me. Analysis- If copyrights were taken away i would have alot more music then what i have now and i would mostly get it online. For some reason albums are slightly better than mixtapes and usually a mixtape is only a partically finished album. I'm sure my friends would still buy CDs and once they do i would burn me a copy of the CD then customize my own CD because more times then not i won't like the whole CD just a few songs. Interpretation- Copyrights are good for economy because it brings in money through threaters and other movie and music outlets also a person would want to see some type of revenue for his or her work, but to the consumer who wants to be satified usually without having to pay a high price getting rid of copyrights would be heaven. As i stated before i would download album after album if there were no copyrights and i couldn't get in trouble for it. Movies on the other hand i would still go see them in threaters beceause i'm not that computer savvy to connect my computer to my TV then watch the movie like that. I would be stuck watching a great action movie on my little computer screen. Evaluation- copyrights are in place for the maker not the consumer. Consumers like high quality and low price but those 2 never seem to meet so not having copyrights would bring the 2 together. Consumers could have high quality movies fast and easy and wouldn't have to leave their couch. The only way a cosumer would have to leave their couch for a movie or an album would be if they wanted to. Engagement- i love to download music but i can't get all the music i would like because copyrights and other issues but if copyrights were taken away i would have access to all the music i would like and not worry about having to pay a fine or go to jail to have it. I understand movie threaters and other music outlets would suffer because of this but at the core of all of this consumers are selfish and want the best at a low price and getting rid of copyrights would do that. Kyle Hettinger Analysis Description: I listen to a ton of music and I am usually proud to say I do it legally. I always hated thinking that if I stole from a band that I liked. Now being in this class I realize that they do not make so much off their record sales, so maybe my views on this have changed a bit. I tend to download often on iTunes and I buy an occasional cd of a band that I really enjoy. Analysis: If music were no longer copyrighted I would most definitely get my music for free. Especially knowing that buying the album is not really supporting the band as much. I would go spend my money on more concerts and less albums or ep’s. When music would be released I would just download it from anywhere I could find it, as long as it was good quality. I would probably never use the iTunes market again. This best part of this is that I could get music instantly. I sometimes don’t buy music because I don’t want to pay for it, but with no copyright I would not have that issue anymore. I would feel better about knowing the music right off the bat and being able to support my band by going to more of their concerts. I would also probably have an expanded library of music genres. I would probably download a lot of different music that I would not otherwise pay for. This could be good for bands because they would get new listenership from their music being available to everyone who wouldn’t pay otherwise. Interpretation and Evaluation: If the removal of copyrights was enforced companies such as iTunes would need to change their business model. Companies that sell music would potentially lose a lot of sales. If the music was available anywhere companies wouldn’t be able to sell the music at the cost and rates they do now. Listeners have no reason to buy music from these companies. They could just download at another site for free. It is more convenient and cheaper to do so this way so why wouldn’t they? This could be beneficial for bands however, in some ways. Like I said before, this may get them new fans that would not have listened to them when they had to pay for music. This could also hurt bands because it would most certainly hurt the music industry. Big labels may not recruit bands anymore because they would not get any record sales. This could make bands less interested in making music. Labels are the way most bands get big and if they are not around then the band will have little reason to make great works of music. They would not have to work hard to perfect their product, simply because people will get it for free anyway. The only way a band would make money is by playing shows. I believe the production of music would decline and the works would become less desirable. Engage: The way the system is now is beneficial to everyone. I do not believe that lifting copyrights would be beneficial in the long run. The music industry thrives the way we do it now and that model is one to follow. It would be nice if the music were easier to for free, and I see how it may be beneficial to a band in the short-term, but in the long-term it would hurt not only the producer but also the consumer.